Dark Ages

[phil25]

To answer this question one has, I assume, to take it that Africa or asia are now in a Dark Age, because foreign imperial rule was bliss and happiness, a cultural high, and independence equalled darkness and blight!!

 

Was there a "Dark Age" at all?

 

Maybe Italians, and imperial "Quislings" thought so - but did the Vikings, the Angles, the Franks, the Jutes, the Parthians, the Goths, or the Huns think they were in a dark age? I doubt it.

 

It all depends on your standpoint. sure Roman and classical culture declined - as modern western culture is or will decline.

 

It is likly that the Romano-British threw out the imperial administration c 400AD (if they had not done so before). I doubt they thought they were voting for something worse.

 

And were the dark ages as dark as used to be thought - art and learning took different forms but survivied. new nations rose - a bad thing?

 

The concept of the dark ages is a very Romano-centric one. rather like me - as i do from time to time - arguing that the British empire was the greatest force for good the world has ever known. I might believe it, but would an Indian, a Kenyan or a Boer think so?

 

I write mainly tongue in cheek - but perhaps we should think on such things.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

the sequence seems to be -"celtic" monastic literacy as the only light of learning in the darkest of times followed by the court of the King of Franks especially with the impetus of his (debatable) crowning as Holy Roman Emperor.

I suggest that literacy is "liberating" as an end in itself ,therefore the peripatetic nature of (mostly)non-literate culture has a twofold problem-impermanence (no tendency to urbanisation and an art expressed totally in ornament) and no ability to consider the abstract. I say this on the suggested argument that urbanisation is the key to Roman "order" and civilisation.

Thats a horribly short summary of several hundred years and some monumental social changes

The critical factor being the power of the King to disseminate the copied works across Europe-the Celtic monks had struggled to maintain the precious words and di dnot have the "upfront" regal power to push the books as courtly gifts to men of power.

 

edit: I just wish to add , bear in mind that even Charlegmane merely reused the shells of surviving Roman buildings, rebuilding in wood not stone whilst "Byzantium" strode on as a literate , monumental power.

Edited May 16, 2006 by Pertinax

[docoflove1974]

the sequence seems to be -"celtic" monastic literacy as the only light of learning in the darkest of times followed by the court of the King of Franks especially with the impetus of his (debatable) crowning as Holy Roman Emperor.

 

 

 

Yes, this is what I had been taught, too. I must go through my stored books to find the source I had read which was a bit more illuminating (pardon the pun).

 

 

I suggest that literacy is "liberating" as an end in itself ,therefore the peripatetic nature of (mostly)non-literate culture has a twofold problem-impermanence (no tendency to urbanisation and an art expressed totally in ornament) and no ability to consider the abstract. I say this on the suggested argument that urbanisation is the key to Roman "order" and civilisation.

 

 

Thats a horribly short summary of several hundred years and some monumental social changes

The critical factor being the power of the King to disseminate the copied works across Europe-the Celtic monks had struggled to maintain the precious words and di dnot have the "upfront" regal power to push the books as courtly gifts to men of power.

 

 

 

Agreed. It seems to me--mind you, this is purely observatory, and I do not have sources to back this up--that this is how any culture 'illuminates' itself from a 'dark' period. It's not just the ability to read and have access to knowledge, but to have it disseminated from the very upper levels of society down to at least the middle-to-lower levels of said society. And while Charlemagne is key to this, I know the historians of Spain look at the Cluny monastic society who trapsed into Iberia, with the intent on 'liberating the Iberians from the clenches of the Moors'...in reality, by the time they got to that northern part of Iberia, the Castilians had already re-conquered that section. But the Cluny are favorably looked-upon and remembered for bringing in 'light' (aka books) which was hidden to them previously. It's at that point that you not only have the 'row of monasteries' (San Mill

[sullafelix]

For so long, Europe had been organised, governed and defended by Rome. No matter what the situation, Rome was virtually always there for the furthest extents of Europe. The beginning of the continuing invasions of barbarians shook the world, but so many continued to believe in Rome. Eventually, when Rome's soldiers coming to the rescue began to become more and more uncommon, the populace turned in on themselves. Barbarians were destroying infrastructure, coinage occassionally had little or no value and the system that the people had come to see as being inevitable, perpetual and indestructible was dismantled violently.

 

These times, the invasions of the Huns, the goths and the reign of Romulus Augustus, were the true beginnings of the Dark Ages. What so many generations of people had believed in was now gone, or rather was run by barbarians, which amounted to the same thing.

 

With the loss of law, infrastructure, direction and protection, the peoples of Europe had only one order of the day; survival. The people had to return to the basics; rudimentary trade of goods having more value then coinage, frugal living and lack of technology etc etc. They had to defend themselves and make enough food and income of some kind to keep themselves alive. This effectively froze Europe. Virtually no central authority could assert the sort of control that Rome had had in it's heyday, because of small dominions, and various conflicting confederations all working to protect their own interests.

 

I am intrigued by this I have to say. I know that you do acknowledge the barbarian input into the Empire at this point but I wonder whether it is not still a rather negative view.

 

We tend to talk in terms of the barbarians destroying our beloved empire but it wasn't really like that. We know that Stilicho and Alaric both just wanted in. The archaeological context of the Roman empire especially in Gaul in the fifth century shows an enormous amount of Germanic influence from burial styles to fashions for jewellery. This was two way traffic and we should try not to be culturally biased about it.

 

This leads to us talking about the Dark Ages in terms of collapse and destruction. In actual fact they were a time of transformation. They are Dark only because we don't know a great deal about them. In Britain there was widespread destruction of the Roman infrastructure its true. However, it could also be argued that Britain was the least romanised of all the provinces so we shouldn't judge the Dark Ages by Rome's most northerly province. I think talking in terms of complete economic breakdown as a result of the barbarians destroying the infrastructure is possibly a little old-fashioned as a view. The barbarians were extremely sophisticated people who had been trading with Rome for some 500 years and now occupied positions of great power. Economic problems had dogged the Roman Empire for as long as it had existed

 

I know very little about the other end of the Dark Ages and what happened at the end of them, but I do think we should stop talking about the dark ages in such a negative way, that is why most archaeologists have abandoned the term with regard to Britain and now refer to sub-Roman Britain.

[Pantagathus]

I suggest that literacy is "liberating" as an end in itself ,therefore the peripatetic nature of (mostly)non-literate culture has a twofold problem

 

One of the other striking problems from the Dark Ages on through the Middle Ages is the reversal of educational priority in powerful/ruling families.

 

Where once the Pater Familias was typically quite cultured and educated, now the first son only received training in warfare & petty politics even though they would be making important decisions for the family; while the second sons on were to sent off to the monasteries to be educated if at all.

[docoflove1974]

Where once the Pater Familias was typically quite cultured and educated, now the first son only received training in warfare & petty politics even though they would be making important decisions for the family; while the second sons on were to sent off to the monasteries to be educated if at all.

 

Let alone that the 'other' sons in the monasteries tended to have longer and healthier lives!

[Pantagathus]

Let alone that the 'other' sons in the monasteries tended to have longer and healthier lives!

 

That is the understatement of the entire age...

[Tobias]

This leads to us talking about the Dark Ages in terms of collapse and destruction.

 

I don't see the Dark Ages as being a time of collapse and destruction. When Romulus Augustus was deposed, nothing more traumatic occurred than had been occurring for years beforehand, and most of European society during the Dark Ages merely stood still to regain their footing.

 

As is said in my statement, i was referring mainly to what began the Dark Ages, the neglect and falling apart of Roman infrastructure, the loss of a standard coinage etc. I don't believe that the entire dark ages were bad, nor am i speaking of them in a negative way; as i said, i'm speaking mainly of the initial stages, which was the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

[Kosmo]

The fall of the empire was violent, but also what happened after it was violent. We see a gradual destruction of what was left from Rome until the years 1000. It was a gradual process of transformation, but also a visible regres in some areas of life: number of inhabitants, urbanisation, transport, trade, coinage, education, arts and crafts, public works, even politics and military art etc.

Odoacru was a roman general, the ostroghots were quite civilised, but the gothic war left little after it and then came the very barbaric longobards and the conflicts with byzantines and franks, avar, hungarian and saracen raids etc

In Britain we see internal conflicts within the romano-briton society with raids from Ireland and saxons then large scale germanic invasions. After this settle a new wave of german invaders comes with ample destruction.

I see the dark ages as a period that gets darker as time passes.

[docoflove1974]

The fall of the empire was violent, but also what happened after it was violent. We see a gradual destruction of what was left from Rome until the years 1000. It was a gradual process of transformation, but also a visible regres in some areas of life: number of inhabitants, urbanisation, transport, trade, coinage, education, arts and crafts, public works, even politics and military art etc.

Odoacru was a roman general, the ostroghots were quite civilised, but the gothic war left little after it and then came the very barbaric longobards and the conflicts with byzantines and franks, avar, hungarian and saracen raids etc

In Britain we see internal conflicts within the romano-briton society with raids from Ireland and saxons then large scale germanic invasions. After this settle a new wave of german invaders comes with ample destruction.

I see the dark ages as a period that gets darker as time passes.

 

And doesn't the change in socio-economic composition affect this, too? Instead of a ruling elite with a decent artisan/merchant middle class, the change to serfdom/fiefdom, I think, accellerates this 'regression' (a good word, Kosmo). Such societies are closed by nature, often bickering (and even warring) with neighboring regions, I think helped with this 'darkening' of Europe.

[Pertinax]

I was pondering this change-we have infeudation/subjugation of a population , with persons tied to a locality and no hint of social mobility either. Any change in rank relates to those already in a priveliged position, by rendering of acceptable services to a Lord or King. Until the Black Death produces a balance tipped toward the scarcity of human labour there seems to be no reason to strive beyond subsistence , certainly not to strive to any hope of change in either art or mindset.

[AEGYPTUS]

I think columba is the name of the Irish travelling monk you were looking for docoflove1974!!

Edited May 20, 2006 by AEGYPTUS

[docoflove1974]

I think columba is the name of the Irish travelling monk you were looking for docoflove1974!!

 

That sounds about right...thanks, Aegyptus!

[Kosmo]

Trade and urbanisation started to be reduced even in the Late Empire when we see the change in the cities name after the populations in the area and ample fortifications thru out the empire.

Some trade continued after the fall of the empire in the west and it was quite important, but the most important change was the expansion to the East and North of Europe of what will became "the West" and the ample changes in Mediterranean because of islamic invasions.

First Germany then Scandinavia and Central Europe joined this super entity that it's christian, romanic and german in the same time.

 

A lot of trade was carried in the Rhine areas, over the Alps and the Channel. Vikings created a vast trading network from Groenland to Dublin and Kiev. They connect this network with the byzantines and arabs in the valleys of Dniepr and Volga. In Sweden are found lots of arab coins and a german emperor imprisons in 860's some vikings that came from Byzantion.

So, the trade networks of the dark arges are quite ample. After the year 1000 a rapid urbanisation develops thru out Europe and the italians in the South and the Hansa in the north create vast networks connected thru the Rhine and the Alps.

When western Europe exited this period by 1100 it was larger then the roman Europe centred on Mediterranean Sea.

[Tobias]

Hmm, i tell you what, that is a particularly well structured argument Shelby, well done sir.

 

 

(sarcasm heavily apparent in my statement I would hope)

Edited June 6, 2006 by Tobias